Chiming in on the DC Court Case (Second Amendment)

The Supreme Court will soon hear the DC Court Case dealing with the Second Amendment.   A few months ago, Washington DC’s gun ban was overturned by the DC court of appeals which affirmed that the Second Amendment applies to individuals.  Washington DC has since appealed to the Supreme Court.  This is my take on the Second Amendment.

First here is the text of the Second Amendment (with emphasis added):

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Is it the right of the people?  My answer is yes; and this personal right was the intent of the framers of the constitution.

The following from Federalist 46 (written by James Madison under the pseudonym “Publius”). Federalist 46 “The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared” was written to counter the opposition that the proposed Constitution provided for a standing army. Those opposed felt that such a force could be used by the government to oppress citizens (as had been seen in Europe etc) or enforce an oligarchy/despot.  One way Madison addressed the objection was to note the ultimate trump card that citizens carried.  That is, the ability to provide sufficient defense to prevent any tyrant and/or rogue army from infringing our citizen’s rights:

…Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors…

The above clearly shows the framers believed firearm possession (and the ability of credible defense) was a basic right.  Further, the Second Amendment explicitly states that it pertains to “the people”.  The State or states are to be the organizer of citizens (such as into units or formations), designate unit leaders, and provide training (”well regulated”) should a situation warrant such a militia be formed, however, “the people” are to comprise that militia.  Fortunately, we have never come to the point of needing such an ad hoc military force.

Additionally, the right to bear arms as an  inherent individual right is bolstered by the fact that Hamilton (in Federalist 84) argued against incorporating a Bill of Rights (first 10 Amendments) into the Constitution, which appertains to all levels of government.  He argued that “the Constitution itself, in ever rational sense, and to every useful purpose, a Bill of Rights.”  Hamilton was concerned that enumerating those rights would allow government or deceitful motives to argue that non enumerated, but inherent rights, were not protected by the Constitution.  As a result, we have the Ninth Amendment to address this concern.  That the right of the people to bear arms is enumerated in the Bill of Rights (which, according to Hamilton, was unnecessary), again shows essentially how important, and ‘unalienable’ the right was considered.

The Constitution serves as much to limit government as to establish it.  The Bill of Rights specifies some of those limits (one of which is arms).  If you the Second Amendment only pertains to government, it makes no sense.  Why protect the right to arms if the government already retains that right with standing armed forces?  It would be redundant and pointless. The only reason to enumerate the right is if it were one which could be infringed upon by government or nefarious authorities.  An authoritative government will certainly not infringe upon itself, especially one which intends to suppress the populace (as described by Madison above).

Finally, the crux of the matter, in my opinion, is who’s rights the Bill of Rights was written to protect.  It is not called the “Bill of State Rights” or the “Bill of Governmental Rights” for a reason.  The focus is “the people”.  Hopefully, that will not change when the Supreme Court rules on this issue.

For further reading see also:   History of the militia in the United States - Constitution and Bill of Rights

Schools, Water Guns, and a Dream (act)

The is another example of school ‘no tolerance’ policies (and no tolerance policies, in general). When I first heard about it, I thought it was just about the kid in Arizona but I was wrong. This time it occured in New Jersey.

For the sake of clarity, these kids didn’t ‘draw’ in the wild west, Gary Cooper or The Duke sense the did so in the Escher or Picasso sense. Good grief.

In other news:

The DREAM Act was quickly brought up in another attempt to ram it through, but failed for a fourth time (click here for the vote record). Both Bennett and Hatch voted in support of it.

Blast post: Newark Massacre, Imams, Iraqis, School Policy

Basically, this is a bunch of stuff I would like to address, but don’t have the time to right now, so you get to hit the links and read it yourself:

Newark Massacre

I’ve been trying to keep up with the Newark murders and found Malkin recently brought up an interesting program which may have benefited one of the perps:

Did the Newark murder suspects benefit from illegal alien amnesty programs?

Malkin is also pushing for State Attorney Generals to stop the “criminal alien revolving door” along with further details for the criminals’ viciousness and possible links to the MS-13 gang. Shurtleff’s contact information is listed on her post. More on this and other cases is available at her site.

Much of the attention is also focusing on sanctuary cities, such as Salt Lake City.

Flying Imams (John Doe)

The Flying Imams finally dropped their suit on the John Doe passengers…too bad Congress’ John Doe provision was watered down, however.

Why We Fight (Iraqi Resolve)

Five-year-old lit on fire by jihadis for no apparent reason

Iraqi Resolve: What it’s Like to be a Cop in Fallujah

Ridiculous Item

Based on the available information, this shows how irrational some people (school administrators, in this instance) are about firearms:

Arizona School Suspends 13-Year-Old Boy for Drawing Gun

Please tell me this mentality is not present in Utah schools (especially the public schools).

I’ll reserve further judgment and see if any more details come out to, somehow, justify the reaction.

Update: More details here: 13-Year-Old Suspended For Doodling Gun. Apparently, the drawing is now in the students permanent file. Note: the drawing on the FoxNews Site is an example of the drawing provided by the boy’s family (video available).

LAT Op-ed: Gun Control Isn’t The Answer

I know this is about four days old, but it is worth a read (plus, it’s one of the rare times I actually like something the LAT published!).  These are excerpts only - I strongly recommend clicking the link for the full Op-Ed:

Gun control isn’t the answer
Why one reaction to Virginia Tech shouldn’t be tightening firearm laws.

By James Q. Wilson, JAMES Q. WILSON teaches public policy at Pepperdine University and previously taught at UCLA and Harvard University. He is the author of several books, including “Thinking About Crime.”

THE TRAGEDY at Virginia Tech may tell us something about how a young man could be driven to commit terrible actions, but it does not teach us very much about gun control.

So far, not many prominent Americans have tried to use the college rampage as an argument for gun control. One reason is that we are in the midst of a presidential race in which leading Democratic candidates are aware that endorsing gun control can cost them votes.

This concern has not prevented the New York Times from editorializing in favor of “stronger controls over the lethal weapons that cause such wasteful carnage.” Nor has it stopped the European press from beating up on us unmercifully.

Leading British, French, German, Italian and Spanish newspapers have blamed the United States for listening to Charlton Heston and the National Rifle Assn. Many of their claims are a little strange. At least two papers said we should ban semiautomatic assault weapons (even though the killer did not use one); another said that buying a machine gun is easier than getting a driver’s license (even though no one can legally buy a machine gun); a third wrote that gun violence is becoming more common (when in fact the U.S. homicide rate has fallen dramatically over the last dozen years).

However, there is no way to extinguish this supply of guns. It would be constitutionally suspect and politically impossible to confiscate hundreds of millions of weapons. You can declare a place gun-free, as Virginia Tech had done, and guns will still be brought there.

If we want to guess by how much the U.S. murder rate would fall if civilians had no guns, we should begin by realizing — as criminologists Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins have shown — that the non-gun homicide rate in this country is three times higher than the non-gun homicide rate in England. For historical and cultural reasons, Americans are a more violent people than the English, even when they can’t use a gun. This fact sets a floor below which the murder rate won’t be reduced even if, by some constitutional or political miracle, we became gun-free.

But even if there were even tougher limits, access to guns would remain relatively easy. Not the least because, as is true today, many would be stolen and others would be obtained through straw purchases made by a willing confederate. It is virtually impossible to use new background check or waiting-period laws to prevent dangerous people from getting guns. Those that they cannot buy, they will steal or borrow.

It’s also important to note that guns play an important role in selfdefense. Estimates differ as to how common this is, but the numbers are not trivial. Somewhere between 100,000 and more than 2 million cases of self-defense occur every year.

There are many compelling cases. In one Mississippi high school, an armed administrator apprehended a school shooter. In a Pennsylvania high school, an armed merchant prevented further deaths. Would an armed teacher have prevented some of the deaths at Virginia Tech? We cannot know, but it is not unlikely.

AS FOR THE European disdain for our criminal culture, many of those countries should not spend too much time congratulating themselves. In 2000, the rate at which people were robbed or assaulted was higher in England, Scotland, Finland, Poland, Denmark and Sweden than it was in the United States. The assault rate in England was twice that in the United States. In the decade since England banned all private possession of handguns, the BBC reported that the number of gun crimes has gone up sharply.

Some of the worst examples of mass gun violence have also occurred in Europe. In recent years, 17 students and teachers were killed by a shooter in one incident at a German public school; 14 legislators were shot to death in Switzerland, and eight city council members were shot to death near Paris. 

The main lesson that should emerge from the Virginia Tech killings is that we need to work harder to identify and cope with dangerously unstable personalities. [emphasis added]

The emphasized statement, is the crux of the matter, in my opinion.  We’re far too focused trying to address the symptoms rather than the cause.

Again, please check out the whole op-ed at the LAT site.

Virginia Tech

I’ve held off saying anything about the Virginia Tech shootings simply because I wanted to wait for the dust to settle and allow for some clear information to be presented. Anytime something like this occurs there is a flurry of information. Often, the massive amount of information (which tends to be a mix of accurate and inaccurate items) in a relatively short amount of time makes for a hazy view of what happened, to say the least.

Hot Air (see above) did do a pretty good job of disseminating things as they unraveled. Currently, Hot Air has started a new thread which brings further clarity. FreeRepublic is also a good clearing house for a plethora of news stories on the massacre (click on the vatech or virginiatech keyword).

I’m sure there will be plenty of details that will surface for the next few weeks.

Right now, three things seem apparent:

1. Students were entirely defenseless during the shootings. Virginia Tech retained a firearms ban. Of course, innocent, law abiding citizens will follow that rule while criminals will take advantage of it. One thing is for certain, no one knows what would have occurred if students and faculty were allowed to have firearms - just because they could, does not guarantee they would choose to provide for their on defense. Nevertheless, allowing law abiding folks the option to protect themselves wouldn’t have hurt -  the gun ban only ensured protection for the murderer.

2. There was a significant delay in informing students about the threat and locking down the campus. Police initially classified the first shooting as a murder-suicide. More information is coming out about this and the ‘person on interest’ (see the new Hot Air thread I linked above). I’m not going to second guess the police or school officials at this time on this. Hindsight is 20/20, I’m certain things would’ve been handled differently, had they known. The only thing I would like answered here is what led them to believe that when neither body had a gun near it? Or was it just a miscommunication (ie they really classified it as a domestic homicide with a fugitive they didn’t believe was a threat to anyone else)…

3. Prior to letting the dust settle and clarifying any ‘facts’ or seemingly even attempting to learn of the firearms used, some in the media and politics have quickly jumped on the ‘ban guns’ bandwagon (Brian Ross - ABC News, Rep. McCarthy, MSNBC Gun Control Special)

After all, it has worked so well for gun-free schools compared to something like the Appalachian School of Law.

Finally, as in all tragedies, a hero emerges. I doubt he will be the only one.

Final Legislative Wrapup (my picks)

• Several bills dealing with illegal immigration didn’t make it through. HB105 would’ve given law enforcement the option to allow their officers to train as immigration enforcement officers. Sundry bills also would have denied illegal immigrants special benefits and certain public services which they shouldn’t be entitled to in the first place (ie legal immigrants don’t get them, illegals certainly shouldn’t).
  • The positive side - significant progress has been made - more bills dealing with the issue, more legislator support, and they made it much further in the process than in the past (despite heavy lobbying by business who want the subsidized labor on your tax dollar).

• Education - School vouchers passed. This will, finally, give parents significantly greater control over their children’s eduction and help cut the ultra liberal NEA-linked teacher union’s (UEA) monopoly on education. Public ed received a huge boost in funding ($500 Million) and teachers were given bonuses and sweat deals for them to buy a home ($15k towards the home). Nevertheless, count on the UEA griping about not enough money, anyway(it’s their perpetual line). Unfortunately, I think there was a bill to allow for ‘merit pay’ based on a teacher’s performance which didn’t make it (the UEA was opposed - it’s better that inept teachers get the same pay as those who excel).
  • All Day Kindergarten (read taxpayer subsidized daycare) passed. The governor really wanted this one and got it. So it appears taxpayers will be providing daycare to anyone who wants it, regardless of income level. The teacher’s union, as I recall, were also big supporters of this. Ironic - they opposed school vouchers because the rich might benefit (although not by much - voucher value was based on income level) but all day kindergarten is ok (even though it doesn’t have a tiered value system like the vouchers).

• Identity Theft - the legislature decided it was fine for ID thieves and fugitive pedophiles to feel safe working here (see ID Thieves and Fugitives: Utah Welcomes You!). I think there were three bills which would’ve had the State and/or businesses verify their prospective employees SSN (you know, make sure it didn’t belong to you or your children). Manufacturers and restaurateurs lobbied hard against the bills (evidently, they like their fugitive/id thief employees working off your kid’s back). In the past, I’ve heard Zions Bank and Wells Fargo, among others, have also lobbied against these types of bills, but since they are big spenders they get to do so behind closed doors to avoid the public exposure.
  • Positive side: there were more of these bills with greater support and making it further in the process
  • Tip: Arctic Circle restaurants supposedly have an excellent training program for spotting fake id’s used for employment. Consider them next time you feel hungry.

• Second Amendment - The UofU failed to get it’s gun ban but dorm residents can ask not to room with a concealed permit holder (I can’t wait until a quick witted young male states he has a phobia of everyone but female cheerleaders and, therefore, requests to room with a cheerleader or a single room at not additional cost based on the standard established by SB251).
  • BCI was allowed to retain funding from concealed carry permit fees rather than seeing them sucked into the general fund. High demand for the permits had strained their budget into the red. The trend won’t change after the Trolley Square shooting - an instructor I talked to noted they don’t have time to do very much training and isn’t well known but had four calls in less than a week after the shooting. Local gun stores have also stated they’ve seen a marked jump in business (particularly handguns).
  • A bill that would’ve prevented the government from confiscating law-abiding citizens’ guns in an emergency (ala NOLA) and a bill allowing you to leave a firearm (in your vehicle) in an employer’s parking lot made it to the House floor (passed the senate) but time ran out before they could be debated. The latter was due to AOL firing two employees who had the nerve to go hunting after work (they didn’t realize AOL’s no gun policy extended to the parking lot).

Shooting Gun Taboos

I was asked why I thought today’s youth seem more prone to gun violence (and violence, in general). That is - why is this a recent issue rather than one seen over a much longer history (especially when kids had far more exposure to weapons)?

Frankly, the question itself contains a good part of the answer - exposure.

When I was young (I promise, it wasn’t that long ago - the 80s), I remember my dad teaching me gun safety with the bb gun. I also learned that I would get a nice butt kicking if I didn’t practice what I was taught and if I used the gun without permission. My dad was always happy to pull out the gun and go shooting with me whenever I asked. I had also seen the guns at my grandmother’s home and knew where they were stored (no they weren’t not locked up but the ammo was in a separate, known, location).

So why didn’t I shoot myself or one of my friends etc? Basically, due to the openness of having guns around and my family’s matter-of-fact attitude, guns were never a draw to me. Rather than being taboo, they were more like a common object seen anywhere (like a sharp knife - who cares). The exposure and knowledge of proper use made the gun uninteresting.

I played outside a bunch as a kid but also did watch a fair amount of TV. Nevertheless, the programs (movie and TV) on weren’t overly focused on the pyrotechnics (usually more on characters overcoming a challenge) and portrayed the use of firearms as a defensive means (ie the good guys used them to stop the bad guy, typically in a very short shoot out). Things were much more focused on the storyline.

Now, people hide their guns, don’t teach their kids about them. Folks are so paranoid they avoid any discussion about the gun and don’t offer to take the kids shooting. Children learn gun use from violent TV shows much more focused on pyrotechnics (blasting everything in sight - guns are the storyline) and an offensive use of firearms (today, the evil character is often elevated to hero or all characters are portrayed as moral equivalents) along with the news media constantly treating firearms as a taboo.

The result is that kids see guns as a very intriguing item with the idea that they are used to shoot people for fun.

For my friends and I, we weren’t tempted to check out the gun when mom and dad were out of the house simply because it wasn’t worth the risk of being caught - all we had to do was ask and dad would take us shooting. Today’s kids, on the other hand, have a much greater temptation - it may be their only chance to take a look at mom/dad’s cool thing and try out that neat stuff on TV.

Ultimately, much of this lies on the breakup of the traditional family and the tolerance of declining moral values.